Partaking Of Roman Eucharist From The Orthodox Side

[dairygirl4u2c]

so i'm thinking about joining orthodoxy. i know the CC teaches the orthodox may partake of the CC eucharist, but do they say anything about catholics who left the faith to go to orthodoxy?

 

i know catholics like to say those who left the faith are the most culpable of all.

 

i should probably ask at another message board, but my understanding is that the orthodox do not permit catholics to partake of their euchaist, and they say their member cannot partake of catholic? is this all correct?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i actually also considered staying within the catholic church and tending to not believe infallibility. i know many don't understand how that'd be really possible, or at least and do not support a position like that

 

before i did that, i'd probably become an eastern catholic where that sort of talk is at least expected.

Edited August 8, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c

[Clare Brigid]

i know the CC teaches the orthodox may partake of the CC eucharist, but do they say anything about catholics who left the faith to go to orthodoxy?

 

Catholics who convert to the Orthodox Church incur the canonical penalty of excommunication latae sententiae.  They may not receive communion in a Catholic Church, even though their fellow Orthodox may.

 

 

 

i should probably ask at another message board, but my understanding is that the orthodox do not permit catholics to partake of their eucharist, and they say their member cannot partake of catholic? is this all correct?

 

Yes.  The only exceptions I've heard about are in the Middle East, where intercommunion is commonly tolerated.

 

i actually also considered staying within the catholic church and tending to not believe infallibility. i know many don't understand how that'd be really possible, or at least and do not support a position like that

 

Basically, you are describing Old Catholicism.  This is what defines an Old Catholic.

 

Can I suggest instead that you read up on the conditions of infallibility and see if you can accept the most minimal permissible view of it?  You might draw some comfort from reading about opposition to ultramontanism at the time of Vatican I.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Clare Brigid

[dairygirl4u2c]

what's the most minimal permissible view of it?

 

i know some like to say there's been only two formal definitions, or perhaps they were meaning ex cathedra situations. but it's commonly known that infallible statements have been made 'we define...' plenty of times in the past.

[dairygirl4u2c]

" You might draw some comfort from reading about opposition to ultramontanism at the time of Vatican I."

 

yes i have done that and you are correct. but then what does one do when they feel themselves in the position of agreeing with that opposition?

[Benedictus]

so i'm thinking about joining orthodoxy.

:eek: You and the Orthodox church are in my prayers :child:

[dairygirl4u2c]

"according to Roman Catholic teaching, the Old Catholic churches of the Utrecht Union have maintained apostolic succession and valid (albeit illicit) sacraments"

 

how does one sacrament be valid but not licit, but another be both valid and licit. aren't orthodox valid and licit? what makes them different, old catholic and orthodox?

[Clare Brigid]

" You might draw some comfort from reading about opposition to ultramontanism at the time of Vatican I."

 

yes i have done that and you are correct. but then what does one do when they feel themselves in the position of agreeing with that opposition?

 

You should read up on holding certain matters in the internal forum.  

 

It is often unnecessary or inappropriate to trouble the faith of others, even though you need guidance.  Perhaps you can seek the advice of a well-educated and kind priest?

Edited August 8, 2014 by Clare Brigid

[marigold]

"according to Roman Catholic teaching, the Old Catholic churches of the Utrecht Union have maintained apostolic succession and valid (albeit illicit) sacraments"

how does one sacrament be valid but not licit, but another be both valid and licit. aren't orthodox valid and licit? what makes them different, old catholic and orthodox?

I believe validity refers to whether the sacraments are the real deal, whether they, for lack of a better word, 'work'. Licitness refers to whether (and when, where and how often) you are permitted by the canonical episcopal authority to perform the sacraments.

The Roman Catholic Church holds that the Orthodox Church's sacraments are valid - our priests' ordinations are real and our sacraments do confer grace. I THINK we are also considered licit, i.e. we are 'allowed' to perform our sacraments - but that is where it gets fuzzy for me as I do not understand how a group can be considered out of communion with the RCC and still be considered ok to perform sacraments. I'm tempted to think it's because we are so undeniably grace filled and apostolic that there's no point debating it, but I may have to defer to a Church Scholar.

Bottom line - the Roman Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Church is merely 'separated' from itself. Its teachings, clergy, sacraments, etc. are all good to go.

The Orthodox Church, however, considers the RCC to be in heresy. It does have real apostolic roots but it has added to and changed the faith received from Christ by those apostles.

For this reason a Catholic is not permitted to receive Communion in an Orthodox church. He or she is out of communion with us. There is a Roman Catholic pastoral teaching that it is ok to do one's 'mass obligation' at an Orthodox Church if one has nowhere else to go, but you would be hard pressed to find an
Orthodox priest who would commune you.

As mentioned though, in the Middle East intercommunion happens more than elsewhere, I think because of the unique historical and political situation.

Edited to add: you're welcome to write privately to me if you want to discuss more. Edited August 8, 2014 by marigold

[dairygirl4u2c]

You should read up on holding certain matters in the internal forum.  

 

It is often unnecessary or inappropriate to trouble the faith of others, even though you need guidance.  Perhaps you can seek the advice of a well-educated and kind priest?

 

someone to guide me, or another place to post is more than welcome. am open to suggestions.

[dairygirl4u2c]

CATECHISM

 

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089  Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”¹¹ (162, 817)

 

i have involuntary doubt. i might be a heretic and im probably a schismatic.

 

i would think canon lawyers could argue about 'obstinate' refusal. one the one hand rejecting a belief, on the other hand living life as if it didn't exist. such as remarrying cause your wife divorced you and hooked up with another. the person might not be sure of the status of remarrying, but they do it  anyway. one could say they are heretics, another could say they hold to much reservation to be heretics

 

i read somewhere that 'obstinate' refusal must include voluntary doubt. i thought i read that in the catechism. maybe somewhere else.

Edited August 9, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i do see one way of minimalizing which teachings are infallible.

 

instead of...

the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals

 

it could be...

the pope, intentionally, *binds*, the church, on faith and morals

 

there are a lot of encyclicals that could go one way or the other on infallibility, and what the pope intended in that regard when writing it, is too up for grabs

[Clare Brigid]

The Orthodox themselves teach that the truths of faith, such as are included in the catechism, are meant to assist us in our salvation.  That is their only purpose.  When I have a difficulty with a teaching, I try to see it this way.  In other words, the teaching is a form of discipline and is meant primarily to guide action and lead to our salvation.  It is not to satisfy our intellectual curiosity.

 

There are many truths and mysteries that are not given to us in the deposit of faith.  That is because they do not necessarily conduce to our salvation and sanctification.

 

Can you see the teaching on infallibility this way, DairyGirl?

Edited August 10, 2014 by Clare Brigid

[dairygirl4u2c]

i can see withholding judgment on the issue of infallibility, and having 'involuntary doubt' about the matter.

 

there are no issues that i see the catholic church as flat wrong about, there's always a shimmer of doubt they are correct even when i tend to disagree. as far as things that are sinful, i may just be a sinner, and not a heretic.... like many catholics who sin. per shismatic, i can withhold judgment so maybe i'm not a schismatic, but then again, if you asked what i thought, id tend to be suspecious of it. so i have tendencies towards schism, but perhaps i'm not

[dairygirl4u2c]

 

Cardinal Guidi, Archbishop of Bologna, in a speech before the Council said that, while accepting infallibility, he urged the Pope to take the counsel of his bishops before issuing decisions as this is the tradition of the Church. Guidis speech was reported to the Pope and he was sent for and scolded. The surprised Cardinal responded that he was only maintaining that bishops are witnesses of tradition. "Witnesses of tradition?" said the Pope, "There is only one; that's me." Even Roman Catholic author Dom Cuthbert Butler in his popular work, "The Vatican Council", admits to the personal influence of Pius IX: "Did it amount to undue influence? That at the final stages he exerted his personal influence to the utmost cannot be questioned, for it was quite open."

Strenuous objections were voiced at the Council regarding the lack of freedom due to the manner of the agenda. Dom Butler admits to the Popes control over the Council when he writes, "In all things the Pope kept to himself the complete mastery. Things which at Trent had been left in the hands of the Fathers - settlement of claims to take part in the Council, appointment of officials, regulation of procedure, etc. - were all now fixed by the personal act of the Pope. The bishops were invited and exhorted to suggest freely anything for deliberation that they thought would be for the general good of the Church. But such proposals or postulations must be submitted to a special Congregation, nominated by the Pope, for dealing with such postulates, to consider them and report its advice to the Pope, with whom the decision would lie as to whether the thing be brought forward at the Council or not."

Denying the validity of the Council, Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick refused to speak at any of the general sessions after June 4th, 1870. Bishop Joseph Strossmeyer of Diakovar told Lord Acton, "There is no denying that the Council lacked freedom from beginning to end." To Professor Joseph Hubert Reinkens, Strossmeyer said that the Vatican Council had not had the freedom necessary to make it a true Council and to justify its passing resolutions binding the conscience of the entire Catholic world. The proof of this was perfectly self-evident.

Bishop Francois Le Courtier spoke for many when he wrote,

"Our weakness at this moment comes neither from scripture nor the tradition of the Fathers nor the witness of the General Councils nor the evidence of history. It comes from our lack of freedom, which is radical. An imposing minority, representing the faith of more than one hundred million Catholics, that is, almost half of the entire Church, is crushed beneath the yoke of a restrictive agenda, which contradicts conciliar traditions. It is crushed by commissions which have not been truly elected and which dare to insert undebated paragraphs in the text after debate has closed. It is crushed by the commission for postulates, which has been imposed from above. It is crushed by the absolute absence of discussion, response, objections, and the opportunity to demand explanations; The minority is crushed, above all, by the full weight of the supreme authority which oppresses it." Furthermore, the opposing minority of about two hundred bishops objected to the short time allowed for studying the text on primacy and infallibility as well as to the practice adopted by the deputations of inserting new clauses at the last moment.

The minority bishops were not allowed to discuss the historical objections against Papal Infallibility with the deputation on the faith. In a letter Bishop Le Courtier complains, "See what more than aught else destroys our liberty: it is crushed under the respect we have for our Head." Later in frustrated anger, Bishop Francois Le Courtier tossed his council documents into the river Tiber and left Rome. The papers were retrieved and brought to the attention of Vatican officials. The price for this gesture was extracted three years later, when he was dismissed as Bishop of Montpellier.

In spite of the unequal representation and Pius IX using the power and prestige of his office, there was still a large number - eighty-eight bishops - who voted against Papal Infallibility, which was enshrined in the constitution, Pastor Aeternus. Sixty-two bishops, many of whom were de facto opponents, voted with reservations, with only four hundred and fifty-one giving a clear yes - this is less than half of the one thousand and eighty-four prelates with voting privileges and less than two-thirds of the seven hundred bishops in attendance at the commencement of the Council. Over seventy-six bishops in Rome abstained from voting and fifty-five bishops informed the Pope that "while maintaining their opposition to the definition that out of filial piety and reverence, which very recently brought our representatives to the feet of your Holiness, do not allow us in a cause so closely concerning Your Holiness to say non placet (it is not pleasing) openly in the face of the Father." This statement alone speaks volumes for the subservience that these bishops had for the immense authority figure of the Pope - a presence unknown in the councils of the Early Church.

Archbishop Kenrick of Saint Louis, who was one of America's extraordinary bishops, wanted to deliver a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings. In his speech prepared for, but not delivered in, the Vatican Council, and published at Naples in 1870, he declares that Roman Catholics cannot establish the Petrine privilege from Scripture, because of the clause in the Creed of Pius IV, binding them to interpret Scripture only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. And he adds that there are five different patristic interpretations of St. Matt. 16:18. Archbishop Kendrick summarises, "If we are bound to follow the greater number of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold for certain that the word "Petra" means not Peter professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter."

"I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church hath held, and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." - Tridentine Creed

Thus lacking a moral unanimity or even a clear two-thirds majority, Papal Infallibility was now elevated as an article of faith equal to the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. A belief that could not possibly meet the Vincentian canon of Universality, Antiquity and Consent, and in fact a belief not universally shared by Catholics even within living memory of the Council that solemnly defined it. Years later, Orthodox theologian Sergei Bulgakov, observed with disdain that, "The Vatican Council has as much right to call itself a Council as todays meetings of delegates from the Soviet republics can claim to be a free expression of the will of the people."